4.  The applicant was born in 1945 and lives in the village of Karakert, Armenia. He works as a school principal.
5.  In February and March 2003 a presidential election took place in Armenia. Following the first and second rounds of the election, a series of protest rallies were organised in Yerevan by the opposition parties, alleging irregularities.
6.  On 21 March 2003 the applicant travelled to Yerevan in order to visit his son who had been placed in a mental hospital the previous day.
7.  On that day a demonstration took place in Yerevan. The applicant alleged that he had not attended the demonstration. According to him, after visiting his son at 3 p.m. he went to the bus station to take a bus back to his village but all public transport to Yerevan had been suspended because of the demonstration. At the bus station he met two co-villagers, Lavrent Kirakosyan and Arman Mkhitaryan, who were intending to participate in the demonstration. They were planning to return home by car in the evening, so he arranged to meet them at 5 p.m. to join them on their return journey to his village.
8.  On 22 March 2003 two police officers from the Baghramyan Police Department (ՀՀ ոստիկանության Բաղրամյանի բաժին) visited the applicant at his home.
9.  The applicant alleged that this visit had taken place at 8 a.m. The police officers informed him that he was required to accompany them to the police station, without providing further reasons.
10.  The Government agreed that the visit had taken place at 8 a.m. but contested the applicant's allegation that no reasons had been given. The Government alleged that the police officers had visited the applicant in order to obtain an explanation concerning his possible participation in an unauthorised demonstration the previous day.
11.  It appears from the materials of the case that the applicant was asked by the police officers to accompany them to the police station. He showed resistance but was nevertheless taken to the police station. According to the Government, the reasons for the applicant's arrest were orally communicated to him by the arresting police officers.
12.  At the police station the arresting police officers drew up a record of the applicant's arrest (արձանագրություն բերման ենթարկելու մասին) in which it was stated that “[the applicant] had been brought to the Baghramyan Police Department for having used foul language and maliciously disobeyed the lawful orders of the police officers for five to six minutes”. The time of the arrest was indicated as 9.30 a.m. This record was signed by the applicant.
13.  The police officers drew up a record of an administrative offence (վարչական իրավախախտման արձանագրություն) in which it was stated that the applicant “had maliciously disobeyed the lawful orders of the police officers and had maliciously used foul language for about five to seven minutes”. The applicant was charged under Article 182 of the Code of Administrative Offences (Վարչական իրավախախտումների վերաբերյալ ՀՀ օրենսգիրք – “the CAO”). This record was signed by the applicant.
14.  The applicant alleged that he had not been able to read the contents of the above documents, including his written statement (արձանագրություն բացատրություն վերցնելու մասին) in which he had admitted committing the alleged acts, since he did not have his reading glasses. Nor were the contents of those documents read out to him. The documents had allegedly been prepared by the police officers who asked him to sign them, which he did on the understanding that this would result in his immediate release from the police station. The applicant further alleged that the chief of police told him that he would be detained since there were instructions from the Minister of the Interior to arrest temporarily all political activists.
15.  The Government contested these allegations and submitted that the applicant had signed all the materials without any objections. The police officers had explained to the applicant his procedural rights and had advised him to avail himself of his right to have a lawyer but he had not wished to do so.
16.  About two hours after his arrest the applicant was taken to Judge S. of the Armavir Regional Court (Արմավիրի մարզի առաջին ատյանի դատարան).
17.  Judge S., after a brief hearing, sentenced the applicant under Article 182 of the CAO to ten days of administrative detention. The judge's entire finding amounted to the following sentence:
“On 22 March 2003 at 9.30 a.m. in the village of Karakert in the Armavir Region [the applicant] maliciously refused to obey the lawful order of the officers of the Baghramyan Police Department acting in pursuance of their duties of preserving public order, in particular, while being taken to the police station, he disobeyed the police officers, used foul language and prevented them from performing their duty.”
18.  The applicant alleged that the above hearing was held in the judge's office. Only the judge, the accompanying police officer and himself were present at the hearing. He was unaware at the time of the hearing that he had been found guilty of a public order offence. The judge asked no questions and explained that he was in no position to make any decision other than that which he had made because “he was told to do so”. The entire hearing lasted a few minutes.
19.  The Government contested this allegation and claimed that the above hearing was held in public. The judge explained to the applicant his right to have a lawyer, to lodge challenges and motions, and to make submissions before the court. The applicant did not wish to lodge any challenges or to have a lawyer. The judge then proceeded with the examination of the materials of the case, heard the applicant and rendered his decision.
20.  On the same date the applicant was taken to the Armavir Temporary Detention Facility of the Armavir Regional Department of Internal Affairs to serve his sentence.
21.  According to the applicant, he was placed in a small cell with eight other people. There was not enough air and no lighting. No food was provided to the detainees. The administration of the detention facility took the best products from the food brought by the detainees' relatives and gave the rest to the detainees. The applicant alleged that his health deteriorated as a result of his detention because he suffered from cardiovascular problems. He was not allowed by the administration to buy medicine.
22.  According to the Government, the applicant's cell met the requirements of healthcare and hygiene. He was afforded a reasonable amount of space. The cell had sufficient natural light, fresh air and artificial light which complied with the technical standards. The applicant had access to water and necessary toilet articles. He was provided with a separate bed and appropriate bedding. Food was provided at regular intervals and in rations defined by the relevant governmental decrees.
23.  On 31 March 2003 the applicant was released from detention after fully serving his sentence.